October 29, 2002

10:52 PM

Stop making excuses for Muslim ExtremistsStill licking my mefi wounds that I received last week when I posted a NY Times article discussing the recent rise of crime in France, in which the author states that a recent immigrant was murdered solely for his North African heritage, and also reports that the mayor of Paris was also attacked in the same week - yet the author does not bother to mention that the attacker was a Muslim who 'didn't like homosexuals'. Has anyone else noticed how the media is downplaying the role of Muslim extremism since 911 ?
posted by Kaslo (68 comments total)

I wouldn't suppose it has anything to do with all the Muslims and Sikhs who were attacked and even murdered in this country and in Europe after 9/11. Nope, not at all.
posted by y2karl at 11:01 PM on October 29, 2002

To their credit, many news outlets called the terrorists who took hostages in Moscow by their right name (terrorists, not "rebels" or "activists")
posted by dagny at 11:02 PM on October 29, 2002

Muslim extremism you say? What's that? I haven't heard a word about it since 9/11.

Except on every fucking media outlet I read/watch/listen to EVERY SINGLE DAY. I think most Americans are well aware of what's going on in the world and don't need to be spoonfed the fact that MUSLIM EXTREMISTS WANT TO KILL AMERICANS. It's pretty fucking obvious, we can all connect the dots, we're not that stupid.

What I would like to see more of us cogent analysis of what the best way to deal with it, rather than annoying bleats from people whose only talent is in bashing his fellow Americans' response to 9/11, rather than discussing responses to the actual problem in a systematic, intelligent way.
posted by chaz at 11:11 PM on October 29, 2002

How does one determine if the media is downplaying or up-playing something? The only basis for comparison would be an alternate set of media sources. And this would still be part of the media. One could argue that an "alternative press" might give a different version of the story, but there would be no real way to determine which was exaggerated and which was "correct". So it would really be more accurate to say "I am concerned more concerned about trend X" than to say that it is under- or overreported.
posted by condour75 at 11:12 PM on October 29, 2002

USA Today editorial: "No one in official Washington or the capitals of Europe will admit it, but the world is being drawn into holy war — one that pits the United States and its allies against al-Qaeda and the untold number of Muslims from Africa to Southeast Asia who sympathize with the goals of bin Laden's terrorist organization."

ABC News article: "It was the first killing of a Western diplomat in Jordan and came amid rising anti-American sentiment in the region, fueled by perceived U.S. bias toward Israel and threats by Washington of a military campaign against neighboring Iraq. Islamist sources also said that Muslim fundamentalist leader Abu Sayaff from the southern town of Maan, a traditional stronghold of Muslim extremists, was injured during a shoot-out as he tried to escape arrest during the security sweep."

Voice of America article: "Security forces Tuesday rounded up political activists and Muslim extremists in a nationwide search for the assassin. Reports say one fundamentalist leader, Mohammed al-Shalabi, also known as Abu Sayaff, was injured during a gunbattle with police near the southern Jordanian town of Maan. "

All these are from the last 24 hours: hardly what I would call "downplaying Muslim extremism".
posted by mischief at 11:13 PM on October 29, 2002

if we are downplaying it, that would be the biggest story since those Keebler Elves blew up the World Trade Center.
posted by condour75 at 11:19 PM on October 29, 2002

Kaslo: Just my opinion, but you probably wouldn't be licking wounds if your posts weren't such obvious (and easily refuted) horseshit.
posted by mischief at 11:25 PM on October 29, 2002

Mark Steyn should write for LGF. Kaslo shouldn't write at all.
posted by donkeyschlong at 12:00 AM on October 30, 2002

What's LGF? Who's Mark Steyn?
posted by jonson at 12:04 AM on October 30, 2002

Oh please. The media were frothing at the mouth, over the sniper case, and were more than willing to profile the shooter, as long as the profile resembled a white male.

Numerous talking heads, paraded on tv, all barking the same survivalist gun nut theory, when quite obviously, it would have been perfectly reasonable to look for an islamic connection instead.

It's only when the profile is a minority, that liberals tend to suffocate in their own misplaced white guilt, and start ignoring reality.
posted by Beholder at 12:15 AM on October 30, 2002

Sure, Muslim fundamentalists can be pretty extreme, but what about all our Christian fundamentalists? Unfortunately, for the old moral equivalence to hold up, the Christians really need to get off their fundamentalist butts and start killing more people. At the moment, the brilliantly versatile Muslim fundamentalists are gunning down Maryland schoolkids and bus drivers, hijacking Moscow musicals, self-detonating in Israeli pizza parlours, blowing up French oil tankers in Yemen, and slaughtering nightclubbers in Bali, while Christian fundamentalists are, er, sounding extremely strident in their calls for the return of prayer in school.
posted by aaronshaf at 12:20 AM on October 30, 2002

Numerous talking heads, paraded on tv, all barking the same survivalist gun nut theory, when quite obviously, it would have been perfectly reasonable to look for an islamic connection instead.

See, because most of the crazed lone gunmen types in this country tend not to be Muslim extremists, or any minorities, for that matter, your "common sense" here is kaka. And it appears the D.C. sniper had numerous grievances far beyond his somewhat cloudy religious conversion, which is the only reason the picnic-ant paparazzi haven't swarmed more ravenously about that point. If it played, they would have by now.
posted by donkeyschlong at 12:21 AM on October 30, 2002

Beholder, are you trying to suggest that John Muhammad's former membership of the Nation of Islam (not generally recognised as "real" Islam) in some way proves a connection between Islam and evil?

Although I acknowledge that "survivalist" doesn't really describe him, John Muhammad _is_ an ex-military gun nut. Live with it, don't slag off Islam.
posted by lambchops at 12:21 AM on October 30, 2002

At the moment, the brilliantly versatile Muslim fundamentalists are gunning down Maryland schoolkids and bus drivers, hijacking Moscow musicals, self-detonating in Israeli pizza parlours, blowing up French oil tankers in Yemen, and slaughtering nightclubbers in Bali, while Christian fundamentalists are, er, sounding extremely strident in their calls for the return of prayer in school.
This part is true. But, it's a shitty article nonetheless- it doesn't tell us anything except "you should be angry and be religiously profiling". There's a difference between a police-performed profiling (legitimized i believe in circumstances like those of last year (those he lists)) and a media-instigated profiling - not justifiable ever, not even in a state of outright war - for it will doubtlessly lead to what a public profiling of a group has always led to - a pogrom.
posted by bokononito at 12:27 AM on October 30, 2002

LGF = Little Green Footballs, no idea who mark steyn is, though.

LGF makes me feel awkward, everytime i read it..
posted by Mijnkopthee at 12:31 AM on October 30, 2002

I think ascribing the sniper's motivations to "muslim extremism" is just plain ridiculous, given that the sect of "Islam" that he followed, NOI, is about as far from extremist Islam of the middle east as Mormonism is from Catholicism. It's probably more relevant to point out that all three of the recent news-making shooting sprees were by ex-U.S. soldiers. Trained to kill by our own military! Call the press!

As far as terrorism goes, I keep thinking about a muslim man, living among us here in the United States, who is channeling millions of dollars, of which the U.S. Government declared a large percentage illegally gotten, towards an effort to undermine the single biggest revenue source of our largest Internet and media company. What's worse, he's taken this effort to the very streets of New York City, defying our laws by blanketing the streets with blatant propaganda promoting his campaign to shift American consumers' dollars into his own organization's pockets.

The worst part? Even though I'm a New Yorker, I pretty much support his efforts.
posted by anildash at 12:35 AM on October 30, 2002

For some fun, read the Guidelines For Countering Profiling (read: downplaying radical Islam) from the Society of Professional Journalists

Two in particular:

5. When writing about terrorism, remember to include white supremacist, radical anti-abortionists and other groups with a history of such activity. . . .

8. Avoid using word combinations such as "Islamic terrorist" or "Muslim extremist" that are misleading because they link whole religions to criminal activity.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:38 AM on October 30, 2002

steve: the difference is that "white" necessarily modifies "supremacist". To call someone just a supremacist would not make any sense. It could mean they like their tacos with sour cream. "Terrorist", on the other hand, is not helpfully modified by adding the social background of the terrorist. You wouldn't say that Timothy McVeigh was a "White Terrorist".

The term "Muslim Fundamentalist," on the other hand, is used all the time. Just as is "Christian Fundamentalist". Both of these have roughly the same meaning; the modifier is necessary only to provide context and is often dropped when context is not needed.
posted by condour75 at 12:50 AM on October 30, 2002

To their credit, many news outlets called the terrorists who took hostages in Moscow by their right name (terrorists, not "rebels" or "activists")

Actually CNN refused to use the word 'terrorist' with the Chechens... This article for example the word terrorist doesn't appear once, instead the Chechens are called 'hostage-takers'. This happened in several article, though it does appear the CNN has come to it's senses and is using the word terrorist.

By the same token, CNN also started calling John Allen Muhammad "John Allen Williams", even though he had legally changed his name to Muhammad. What is the prupose in calling him by the wrong name? Possiably to downplay the word "Muhammad"? I don't know, but I can not think of any logical reason why else...

You wouldn't say that Timothy McVeigh was a "White Terrorist".

You are right, and I would not say Arab Terrorist. "White" is denoting race, and a person is not simply motivated to commit a terrorist act because they are born in to a certain race. On the other hand, Islam is a system of beliefs, so if one commits a terrorist act based on those beliefs, they could be called a "______ terrorists" This is no different than if a faction of the Catholic Church broke off and started to incite it's member to commit terrorist acts, you would call them "Catholic terrorists"
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:03 AM on October 30, 2002

you would call them "Catholic terrorists"

Is that what we call the IRA?
posted by donkeyschlong at 1:07 AM on October 30, 2002

from Steve's link:
Avoid using terms such as "jihad" unless you are certain of their precise meaning and include the context when they are used in quotations. The basic meaning of "jihad" is to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself.

Nice. Wow. Here's some propaganda for ya. That's coming from "The Society of Professional Journalists". Sounds more like coming from the Ministry of Truth. Perhaps they want to read up on jihad somewhere.. here for example (make sure to reload the front page a few times for fun).
posted by bokononito at 1:11 AM on October 30, 2002

Is that what we call the IRA?

No. The IRA is a terrorist organization who's goal is the removal of the British from Ireland, some members are Catholic. If their goal was to impose Catholicism on Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, then they would be Catholic terrorists. It has to do with that the intedned goal of the group is.

Calling al-Queda, and other groups like them, "Islamic Terrorist" is not a misnomer. A goal of these groups is to impose the Sharia, the Islamic law of the Qur'an, on others. In other words, their goal is to force their Islamic beliefs on you
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:17 AM on October 30, 2002

Avoid using terms such as "jihad" unless you are certain of their precise meaning and include the context when they are used in quotations. The basic meaning of "jihad" is to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself.

and from Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: ji·had
Pronunciation: ji-'häd, chiefly British -'had
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic jihAd
Date: 1869
1 : a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty
2 : a crusade for a principle or belief

...so, where's the problem?
posted by iamck at 1:39 AM on October 30, 2002

Waging a 'holy war' and 'exerting oneself' are a little different, no?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:42 AM on October 30, 2002

This is no different than if a faction of the Catholic Church broke off and started to incite it's member to commit terrorist acts, you would call them "Catholic terrorists"
Actually, I think this misses the point somewhat, as does your remark about someone committing a terrorist act based on a system of beliefs (like Islam). As has been said in countless places, no one who goes around committing mass murder can possibly legitimately claim to be doing so in the name of Islam, because Islam condemns them. Calling people Islamic Terrorists simply because they happen to be Muslims is reductionist and lazy. Likewise, unless those Catholics you mention were taking instructions from the Pope, they wouldn't be Catholic Terrorists in any meaningful sense of the phrase.

On Preview, we're clearly not going to agree that the way one names these groups is related to the intended goal they profess to have. I think that labelling them Islamic Terrorists has a wider negative effect on the millions of people who follow Islam peacefully, and lends them credibility by associating them with a legitimate religion that they clearly don't represent at all.
posted by jonpollard at 1:43 AM on October 30, 2002

Waging a 'holy war' and 'exerting oneself' are a little different, no?

...but 'exerting oneself' and 'a crusade for a principle or belief' are more or less the same. Just strike the word crusade.
posted by iamck at 1:49 AM on October 30, 2002

no one who goes around committing mass murder can possibly legitimately claim to be doing so in the name of Islam, because Islam condemns them.

Would that be the mosques all over the middle east that every Friday imams deliver sermons praising terrorism, and encouraging Muslims to commit acts of terrorism?
Many groups condemn the acts, but there is a significantly large group that does not.

As for the Catholic - Pope issue you raised, I could have substituted any religion in there I wanted to, the Papal connection is besides the point.

we're clearly not going to agree that the way one names these groups is related to the intended goal they profess to have.

Sorry I must have missed the memo when that decision was made...

Would you not call some one who's goal is to "hunt deer", a "deer hunter"? an activist who's goal is "peace", a peace activist? a candidate for president, a "presidential candidate"?

Therefor I think it only logical that someone who wishes to impose their beliefs in Islam though the use of terror, would be an "Islamic Terrorist"

If you are implying that by using "Islamic Terrorist" it lumps all people of Islamic faith into the terrorist group... Well, then using my examples above, you could then say that all hunters, shoot only deer, all activist only advocate peace, and that all candidates are running for the office of president... right?

Just strike the word crusade

What is the point of looking up a definition of a word, if you are going to pick and chose what parts of that definition you want to use?
The word "jihad" as currently used by the Islamic world is a war, campaign, crusade, expedition, battle or what ever you want to call it, for Islam.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:16 AM on October 30, 2002

With 2000 killed in a few days, and countless others horrifically brutalized, I'd say that Hindu extremism is both on a par with the worst atrocities commited by the islamists and quite invisible to the (Western) media.
posted by talos at 2:31 AM on October 30, 2002

Guess what?
not all terrorists are muslims and not all muslims are terrorists. All muslims that I know do not represent the extreme Islmaic terrorists. There are extreme forms of many religions and cults, remember that idiot David Koresh he was a member of the Church of Seventh Day Adventists. but not all member of the Church of Seventh Day Adventists are nutters, right?
We have to be careful who we point are fingers at, yes, get the extremists but leave the muslim communites alone.
posted by JonnyX at 2:43 AM on October 30, 2002

no one who goes around committing mass murder can possibly legitimately claim to be doing so in the name of Islam, because Islam condemns them.

Futher, Islam seems to condemn murder, but the key phrase here is "martyrdom", which is rewarded with spread-eagle eternally eager (female?) virgins wallowing in baths of honey and milk forever.

Damn it.......
posted by hama7 at 2:48 AM on October 30, 2002

Steve: we're clearly not going to agree that the way one names these groups is related to the intended goal they profess to have.

Sorry I must have missed the memo when that decision was made...

Your memo, Steve, a few posts earlier - "It has to do with that the intedned goal of the group is. "

I was simply saying that we're not going to agree, because you think that, and I don't.
posted by jonpollard at 2:55 AM on October 30, 2002

hama7, As good as it is to see you, I though you said you were taking a break...?

Still good to see you...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:56 AM on October 30, 2002

I though you said you were taking a break...?

that's why I said "damn it"... it's so damn tempting.
posted by hama7 at 3:02 AM on October 30, 2002

A couple of clarifications...

The IRA are republican terrorists. They are fighting for a united Irish Republic. However, there has always been a religious aspect to the Irish conflict as the Unionists (want to keep union with Great Britain) & Republicans tend to divide on Protestant/Catholic lines. A good starting point for those who wish to know more.

A better, more detailed, defenition of 'Jihad'.

Extracts:
'Jihad has a great significance in the lives of Muslims (Submitters in English). Like any language, Arabic has unique words which have a particular meaning which cannot be translated precisely. The best translation known for such a word is the following: a sincere and noticeable effort (for good); an all true and unselfish striving for spiritual good.'

'Jihad also includes the striving and establishing of justice. Before one can strive for justice in his/her community, justice must be one of his/her main religious and moral principles.'

'Jihad may also reflect the war aspects in Islam (Submission). The fighting of a war in the name of justice or Islam, to deter an aggressor,for self defense, and/or to establish justice and freedom to practice religion, would also be considered a Jihad.'

'...God accepts only justice, fighting in the name of God is fighting in the name of justice. But, contrary to many people's interpretation, Jihad is anything but a holy war; the media and public misunderstand this.'

'In the light and essence of Islam (Submission) and the Quran, there is no war which is holy; this, under any circumstances whatsoever. In fact the whole text of the Quran and the religion of Islam (Submission) revolves around the concept of peace, not war. To many people's ignorance, Islam (Submission) is also a word that share the same root of the Arabic word Salaam meaning peace. To Islam (Submission), war is unholy, Jihad must mean anything but holy war.'

C'mon people, let's at least attempt to fact-check our asses...
posted by i_cola at 3:15 AM on October 30, 2002

And:
Steve: If you are implying that by using "Islamic Terrorist" it lumps all people of Islamic faith into the terrorist group... Well, then using my examples above, you could then say that all hunters, shoot only deer, all activist only advocate peace, and that all candidates are running for the office of president... right?

No, because that's not what I'm implying - I'm saying that calling them Islamic Terrorists legitimises their claim to be representing the religion when in fact they're not. Besides the fact that I don't think your examples are at all comparing like with like.

And to be honest, I don't think anyone seriously believes that they think they'll convert the world through their acts of terror. It certainly doesn't seem to be swaying me over to an adoption of their beliefs any more than it is you.

Oh well, time to get on with some work, I guess.
posted by jonpollard at 3:16 AM on October 30, 2002

I don't think anyone seriously believes that they think they'll convert the world through their acts of terror.

I don't think that's the point, actually. I think the terrorism is a means to pit the civilized secular world against Muslim extremists in a duel toward armageddon and world religious war, which Islamists will ostensibly win, somehow. Imaginatively.
posted by hama7 at 3:25 AM on October 30, 2002

hama7: So where does the UK (& others) fit in, being a non-secular democracy 'n' all?

More accurately, from Terrorism: Questions & Answers

'What is al-Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist network. It seeks to purge Muslim countries of what it sees as the profane influence of the West and replace their governments with a fundamentalist Islamic regime.'

I repeat; 'C'mon people, let's at least attempt to fact-check our asses...'
posted by i_cola at 4:09 AM on October 30, 2002

Oh, great MetaFilter discussion, fuckwits. Hate to intrude on your ideological pissing match, but I really ought to point out, as I have before, that it's Mark Steyn -- he's the National Post's über-right holdover from the Conrad Black days. This is a guy who quotes LGF and SDB approvingly in his columns. I'm not sure I know a U.S. commentator who would be equivalent, but trust me, this is a screed, not a thoughtful analysis, and not the definitive truth. Grain of salt. Though, as usual, some of you take any opportunity to have another flamewar on this topic, and some of you will use any bit of evidence you can find -- warbloggers linking to each other to prove their points in one big hermetically sealed circle jerk -- to prove your point without actually knowing anything.
posted by mcwetboy at 4:17 AM on October 30, 2002

It's only when the profile is a minority, that liberals tend to suffocate in their own misplaced white guilt, and start ignoring reality

O'righty, I don't know what kind of news you lot are getting but I think everyone considered the possiblility that the sniper killings were part of some el-kyeeda terrorist attacks. It was put forward here a number of times (I'm too lazy to link the threads, you've read them I'm sure).

As an aside, that 'news site' was pretty trashy, I don't think the National Post is a particularly reliable news source if this is anything to go by...
posted by backOfYourMind at 4:19 AM on October 30, 2002

it's Mark Steyn -- he's the National Post's über-right

More 'gestapo' nonsense. Nice computer-savvy with the umlaut.

This is an opinion piece.

Many (myself included) find Steyn's points ridiculously obvious, yet progressive leftists seem to ignore reality in favor of a kind of schizophenic amnesia, ignoring trends and tides of extremism in order to bolster the corrupt notions of multiculturalism and moral relativism.
posted by hama7 at 5:01 AM on October 30, 2002

schizophrenic, that is. (But you knew that.)
posted by hama7 at 5:06 AM on October 30, 2002

"eager (female?) virgins", Hama7? I'm sure you're not trying to insinuate that Muslim = gay = bad, but it sounds a lot like it...what exactly do you mean?
posted by lambchops at 5:09 AM on October 30, 2002

MCWETBOY-------------so go play on your own blog then you dipshit. if you dont like it here then FUCK OFF
posted by JonnyX at 5:25 AM on October 30, 2002

JonnyX, MetaTalk, and sayonara.

hama7, my intention was not to go Godwin with the use of the umlaut. German != Nazi. Höffentlich kannst du das verstehen.
posted by mcwetboy at 5:31 AM on October 30, 2002

yet progressive leftists seem to ignore reality in favor of a kind of schizophenic amnesia, ignoring trends and tides of extremism in order to bolster the corrupt notions of multiculturalism and moral relativism.

Exemplary Straw Man argument.
May I point out, as I did in the Paris mayor thread, that a neo-nazi attacked French President Jaques Chirac, with even less publicity in the US media than the attack on the Parisian Mayor.
Meanwhile, it ain't just Muslims who kill homosexuals.
posted by talos at 5:31 AM on October 30, 2002

OK, here's a more scholarly essay on the many
meanings of "Jihad"

"The Arabic word jihad means to strive, to exert oneself, to struggle. The word has a basic connotation of an
endeavour towards a praiseworthy aim. In a religious context it may express a struggle against one's evil
inclinations or an exertion for the sake of Islam and the umma. For example trying to convert unbelievers or working for the moral betterment of Islamic society. In the books on Islamic law, the word means armed struggle against the unbelievers, which is also a common meaning in the Koran. Sometimes the jihad of the sword is called the smaller jihad, in opposition to the peaceful forms names the greater jihad. Nowadays, it is often used without any religious connotation, more or less equivalent to the English word crusade. If used in a religious context, the adjective "Islamic" or "holy" is currently added to it. Military action is a subgroup of the Jihad and not its totality. That was what prophet Mohammad emphasized to his companions when returning from a military campaign, he told them:

This day we have returned from the minor jihad (war) to the major jihad (self-control and betterment)"


posted by troutfishing at 5:31 AM on October 30, 2002

These definitions of "jihad" are all well and good, but ever consider that the extremists who use "jihad" to describe what they do may not subscribe to Webster's definition? Just as "war" can be used in the US for purposes less violent than the commonly accepted definition, in government programs like the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Cancer" (I'm purposely leaving out the War on Drugs, because that does include an element of violence), the word "jihad" can also be interpreted in a manner that suits the user's (or the observer's) needs. It's semantics. One person's "struggle" is another's "war".

On preview: Thanks, troutfishing. Good stuff there.
posted by shecky57 at 6:26 AM on October 30, 2002

LGF has a spiteful one-track mind but they do a few things right. I love their What's On Arafat's Desk?" series where they track stuff like the untouched inbox, the baby wipes etc :)
posted by anser at 7:16 AM on October 30, 2002

I'm surprised that the story of anti-Muslim anti-immigrant gay Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn and his assassination hasn't surfaced in this thread.
posted by skimble at 7:30 AM on October 30, 2002

Donkeyschlong & Mischief: There is no need for you to get nasty. So what if I can not write as well as Marc Steyn (the author of the link)? Can you ?

That's the whole point of this forum - to introduce news items of interest that the participants can discuss intelligently and respectfully. I'm new to Metafilter and I guess you guys are the self-annoited bullies of this annoyingly PC mefi schoolyard.
posted by Kaslo at 7:44 AM on October 30, 2002

shecky57: Which is why the Society of Professional Journalists say:

'Avoid using terms such as "jihad" unless you are certain of their precise meaning and include the context when they are used in quotations. The basic meaning of "jihad" is to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself.'

er...QED?

Kaslo: [and I write this in a friendly manner]
Mark Steyne, IndyMedia, Ann Coulter and many other sources of opinion will get people's backs up due to the inflaminatory nature of their writing. Also, your post tends towards editorializing which might not help.
posted by i_cola at 8:01 AM on October 30, 2002

Kaslo: You might want to check out some of the discussion over on MetaTalk.
posted by i_cola at 8:21 AM on October 30, 2002

"This is a guy who quotes LGF and SDB approvingly in his columns"
Steyn used the same Mussavi quote in his "they want to kill us all" or what ever article, which made the rounds on MeFi last week, that I used (on Mefi) before Steyns column came out. (not saying theres a connection, hardly) So if one quotes that vile LGF so what. Either don't read it or take what you want or need and leave the rest. This is basic to anyone whom seeks to gather information about a topic matter.

"and not the definitive truth" whodathunk. how subjective.

to prove your point without actually knowing anything.
I'm your huckleberry if you want to actually posit something worthy of debate.

(nice work steve@)
posted by clavdivs at 8:41 AM on October 30, 2002

I don't get it when people like this threader and Andrew Sullivan start asking why we haven't "connected the dots" about the fact that certain Muslims are religious fanatics.

I think we have figured that out -- uh, thanks.

What's more to say? What do they want, concentration camps? Anti-Muslim legislation? Large warning billboards with sinister-looking Arabs on them?
posted by inksyndicate at 8:57 AM on October 30, 2002

Exemplary Straw Man argument.
May I point out, as I did in the Paris mayor thread, that a neo-nazi attacked French President Jaques Chirac, with even less publicity in the US media than the attack on the Parisian Mayor.

Not only that, but (gasp!), it was a Muslim tourist who thwarted the attack. Again, dead silence from the asshole gallery.

That people even attempt to label such things astonishes me. Do you also refer to the Son of Sam dude as "that Jew"? Fuck off.
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:58 AM on October 30, 2002

What do they want, concentration camps? Anti-Muslim legislation? Large warning billboards with sinister-looking Arabs on them?

I think they do, yes.
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:59 AM on October 30, 2002

I'm just disgusted with all the pro-McVeigh, pro-Koresh, pro-abortion clinic bomber demonstrations I've seen around the planet over the past few years. The sight of thousands marching in support of these criminals is outrageous! Enough already!
posted by HTuttle at 9:52 AM on October 30, 2002

More 'gestapo' nonsense. Nice computer-savvy with the umlaut.

Um, Mr. Author of the PC fascist thought police?
You ordered the goose, gander, sauce and soup? Enjoy! ;P
posted by y2karl at 11:04 AM on October 30, 2002

That's the whole point of this forum - to introduce news items of interest that the participants can discuss intelligently and respectfully.

I honestly have no clue where you got that idea, but you may want to try reading the guidelines. This is not a "forum" to introduce news; it's a weblog designed to discuss interesting web content, some of which may be news-related.
posted by liam at 11:59 AM on October 30, 2002

Stop making excuses for supporters of Muslim Extremists!
posted by homunculus at 12:57 PM on October 30, 2002

The only reasonable responseI can see to FPPs like this is to post a link to one of the several good indexes to logical fallacies, and perhaps links to the principal fallacies involved. And then say, "move on, nothing to see here."
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:48 PM on October 30, 2002

From the site owner's now-classic poem, "Is it time to call a moratorium on posts linking to typical op-ed pieces?", August 26, 2002:

"...the problem is these are often thinly-veiled essays about an issue. Like I said before, issues make for boring, polarized, banal, and/or heated discussion that usually goes nowhere. Issues are only interesting in addition to something else that is interesting about a post, but op-eds are usually issues-only, and if it's just liberal vs. conservative, israel vs. palestine, etc, it's not going to make for a very good post.

"I'm not one to make rules, but it's creating a lot of pointless noise on the site."

The critics, of course, loved it.
posted by mediareport at 2:07 PM on October 30, 2002

but the key phrase here is "martyrdom", which is rewarded with spread-eagle eternally eager (female?) virgins

Or possibly rewarded with raisins.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:38 PM on October 30, 2002

Well, so much for my adventure here. I post articles and get slammed for having a contrary view to the majority of the posters here...and get nasty emails, too. What's the point of posting anything here ? What's the point of a discussion board if it's a cabal of like-minded persons ? I thought it was to promote discussion, not get called stupid, fascist, etc. by those who don't agree with my position. I want my mefi donation back....so I'll step out of this insular universe (at least for now). Go on preaching to the converted !
posted by Kaslo at 8:57 PM on October 30, 2002

Boo hoo hoo, pointless noise.
posted by y2karl at 9:12 PM on October 30, 2002

Um..as for the sniper's motivations: I think this makes it clear that the "personal problems" explanation is a red herring.
posted by 23lemurs at 8:22 AM on October 31, 2002

I want my mefi donation back

I love it. The first I hear of this guy is in a nearly incoherent whine of a front-page post, and now he blames MeFi and wants his money back? Yeah, we'll all chip in right away.

You donated to jump ahead in line, not to get special privileges. Asking for your money back just shows how little you understand the site. Not surprising you're already leaving.
posted by mediareport at 11:36 AM on October 31, 2002

I live near a mosque, and have visited once when they had an "open house" to show the community what they are about. They are quite conservative in their beliefs and disciplines, however they have the right to believe and practice their religion here. There are lots of moderates in Islam.

Has anyone noticed how the media isn't slamming Christian fundamentalist extremism lately? Unless I'm mistaken, those professing Judeo-Christian beliefs have been implicated in more atrocities throughout history than those holding any other belief system.

The media doesn't need to spread any more FUD than we already have here in the U.S., at this point, concerning the Muslim community. It would be nice to see people reaching out and building bridges to those who have strange, unfamiliar foreign religions.
posted by TreeHugger at 2:09 PM on November 1, 2002